- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) These three appeals arise out of the judgment and order passed by the Principal bench of the central Administrative tribunal in OA No. 2559 of 1993 and in Review Application No. 186 of 1994. Dr Ranjana Agrawal (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant') has filed one. combined appeal whereas Union of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondents') has filed two separate appeals - one against the judgment and order passed in the OA and the other against the judgment and order passed in the review application. The short question that arises in these appeals is whether the tribunal was right in holding that the assessment made by the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB) of the work done by the appellant during the relevant period was arbitrary and then directing the respondents to promote the appellant as S-3 Scientist w. e. f. 1/1/19855. as recommendations to that effect were made by the Head of the Department and the Director of the Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, under whom she was working.
(3.) The appellant joined the Indian council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) in 1972 as a Statistical Investigator. She was made Junior Statistician in 1974. Agricultural Research Service (ARS) was constituted w. e. f. 1/10/1975, with the object of giving merit promotion to the scientists, without their facing competition from others and on the basis of their own performance. The appellant was inducted therein as S-1 Scientist. The ARS Rules provide that the scientist in ARS is to be assessed on a five-yearly basis for considering him for promotion to the next higher grade/giving advance increments on the basis of his/her performance for that period. The appellant was assessed accordingly for promotion for the first five-yearly period 1974-1979; and, on being recommended by the ASRB she was promoted as S-2 Scientist w. e. f. 1/7/1980. She would have become due for consideration for her next promotion as S-3scientist on completion of 5 years on 30/6/1985. Though, according to the rules, seniority has no relevance for promotion, some scientists who had joined earlier but were not promoted before their juniors came to be promoted, filed a writ petition in the Delhi High court and as a result of the decision given in that case on 5/3/1987 the appellant and other S-1 Scientists were given promotions as S-2 Scientists w. e. f. 1/7/1976. As a result of the pendency of the said writ petition and for certain other reasons, the Assessment Committee of the ASRB had not met in 1986 nor could it meet till 15/7/1992. The appellant and other S-1 Scientists were then called upon to submit their pro formas for assessment for the period ending on 31/12/1981 as they had completed five years as S-2 Scientists on 30/6/1981; but, in view of the subsequent developments, some S-2 Scientists had also submitted pro formas and other information regarding their work for the years 1980 to 1985. The Assessment Committee assessed the work of all those S-2 Scientists and made certain recommendations. The appellant was not recommended either for promotion from 1/7/1982 or for advance increments. The appellant and four other scientists feeling aggrieved by the said assessment made representations to the ICAR but they were rejected on 24-9- 1993. Thereafter the appellant was called upon to submit yearly supplementary information regarding her work for the years 1982, 1983 and 1984. The Assessment Committee then met on 27/7/1993 and after assessing the work of the appellant, recommended one advance increment for the year 1982 and two advance increments for the year 1984. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the earlier result of assessment made on 15/7/1992 and rejection of her representations against the same and also by the assessment made in September 1993 challenged them before the tribunal on the ground that the assessment was made in an arbitrary manner on the first occasion and that the Assessment Board was not properly constituted on the second occasion.;